linux-kernel - Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B9E9B92.1040506@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:41:54 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, drepper@...hat.com,
	ralf@...ux-mips.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...savvy.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, munroesj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()

On 03/15/2010 01:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 12:41 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> I don't see why syscall() can't change the type for its first argument
>> -- it seems to be exactly what symbol versioning is for.
>>
>> Doesn't change the fact that it is fundamentally broken, of course. 
> 
> No need to change the type of the first arg and go for symbol
> versionning if you do something like I proposed earlier, there will be
> no conflict between syscall() and __syscall() and both variants can
> exist.
> 

Basically symbol versioning done "by hand", actually using symbol
versioning is better, IMNSHO.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/